|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 10, 2011 9:37:47 GMT -5
Please note your phrasing "The OT does not say the Jews were..." Keep in mind the OT was written BY the Jews, ABOUT the Jews. The OT is not an objective piece of literature. That is too naturalistic a view of scripture for me. Either it was 'divinely breathed in' or it was just a cultural byproduct. Well, I do believe that Israel was God's chosen people, but I do not believe that all other people were condemned without hope. God gave specific instructions in the law regarding how the foreigner and stranger could be assimilated into the assembly of Israel. Furthermore, God defines the "congregation of Israel" as those who are circumcised. Exodus 12:43-46 " And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.” " God's Israel, his chosen people was never intended to be biologically determined, despite what some people may believe. That's why Jesus said " For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones". And there was one law for native and stranger alike. Leviticus 19:34, " The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." Ah, but here's the catch! It is the philosophy which says that Israel saw themselves as 'the world' that creates this problem, not the OT scripture. Even in the OT there is no partiality with God. Deuteronomy 10:16-19, " Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." I find this agreeable. In fact, that's why I don't believe the use of "heavens and earth" of Revelation needs to redefine the "Heavens and earth" of the OT. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 10, 2011 10:38:51 GMT -5
Morris, What does "heaven and earth" refer to in Scripture? What passed away in Rev. 21:1? Was it the physical universe? Or was it the old covenant? "Heaven and earth" always refers to covenant/covenant people/something defined covenantally. It never refers to the physical universe. Or at least, it can be understood in this covenantal sense in every verse of Scripture. It can be understood in a physical sense in a few verses of Scripture, but that sense does harm elsewhere. "Heaven and earth" in Revelation 21 doesn't need to be taken any more literally than the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:12-16. I wouldn't transcribe this visual to the Jesus in Acts 1. This is an idiom that is dependent on context and in general agree with you here. I have no difficulty with this phrase anywhere in scripture. "World" is the same as "earth". It describes the solid ground regardless of, or perhaps I should say independently of, the size of area (including under water). It can mean the ground under me, or all that is ground. (This is differentiated from the word in Genesis 1:9 that means 'ground that is dry'). What is this fixation on "planet"? "Kosmos" means 'orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally))' according to Strong's and also Thayer. I do not know where your definition comes from. By if it is true, Romans 5:12 says that sin entered into one people of one generation. Regarding "oikoumene", I can generally agree that it often refers to the 'known world', but not by strict necessity. The rest I can only assume is a philosophy on the use of those words since I don't know where it comes from. I would like for you, if time permits so, to address the many comments, scriptures, and issues that I have raised in this thread. It seems I am usually the one that is asked the questions and left to answer them (not that I mind, especially when time is available). Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 10, 2011 11:57:23 GMT -5
Comankind,
If you don't like covenantal, how about legal? Corporate?
These are synonyms.
Imagine a map of the United States. It is a picture of reality.
Is Colorado a pale orange? Is New Mexico a pale blue? If you go to the border, will you see a black stripe on the ground? Certainly not.
So what kind of reality does the map picture? A covenantal, legal, political, corporate reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 10, 2011 12:30:46 GMT -5
Well, I do believe that Israel was God's chosen people, but I do not believe that all other people were condemned without hope. God gave specific instructions in the law regarding how the foreigner and stranger could be assimilated into the assembly of Israel. Furthermore, God defines the "congregation of Israel" as those who are circumcised. Morris, You have made numerous assumption about what others believe and are trying to use Scripture to falsify those false assumptions. Answering your questions directly is akin to answering the question, "Are you still beating your wife?" Back in 600 BC, how was a Navajo to do the things you've suggested? You have left that man without hope. He couldn't even know that hope existed. With regards to your question, your view is not a bit different from what you imagine ours to be. God's Israel, his chosen people was never intended to be biologically determined, despite what some people may believe. I've said the same thing on this forum numerous times. I've given several lines of evidence to demonstrate that's God's people were never biologically determined. The descendants of Abraham's 318 fighting men born in Abraham's household went into Egypt and came out full fledged Israelites. The mixed multitude that left Egypt crossed the Jordan as Israelites. I use this as evidence that God's covenant is all that matters. "Seek first the kingdom of God..." You use it for what? To deny that covenant matters, one place, but to affirm covenant in another? I do not know where your definition comes from. By if it is true, Romans 5:12 says that sin entered into one people of one generation. Your definition of kosmos came from where? A dictionary? My definition comes from carefully studying all 180 plus uses of kosmos and seeing that many can only be interpreted in the manner I have described. The remainder, all but one can easily be interpreted in that manner. Start with John 1? What "world" did Jesus come to? What "world" was expecting Him and was supposed to recognize Him? American Indians? No. "His own." His own was the "world" he came into. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the people of that generation, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned Works for me? Do you believe that sin entered multiple peoples at once? Or that sin came separately to each generation? I can't see how you could have a problem with this? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 10, 2011 14:27:10 GMT -5
Morris, You have made numerous assumption about what others believe and are trying to use Scripture to falsify those false assumptions. Answering your questions directly is akin to answering the question, "Are you still beating your wife?" I have asked, time and time again, for what others believe in various texts. And I get back, thus far, is a philosophical statement on how certain texts should be interpreted. How is it that I am expected to answer questions? If hope rests in the Law, then yes, that person was without hope. But scripture provides otherwise. Hope didn't lie in ceremony. As Paul shows us in Romans 2, God judges a man's heart according to the law they've been given. It may well be that those without the written law are judged by the law God puts within an individual, and according to their response of conscience. I don't know exactly what God's process is here, but I do trust Him to be just. Agreed, and this isn't a difference between our views. If covenant was "all that matters", Adam and Eve would have perished utterly as soon as they eat of the tree. That is what God's holiness demanded of a broken covenant. It was God's mercy that allowed them to die by process and be kept unto His Christ's redemption. Anyway, the covenant with Abraham was with Christ first and foremost. Scripture has interpreted that for us. I'm sorry but this sounds like a poor method to me. A word's definition may be influenced by its contextual use but the context does not give the word its definition. Language would dissolve if this was done with all words. I too have looked at all these occurrences and I have to disagree with your conclusion. Actually, John 1 reads just fine using the definitions of the words they have. The difficulty may come if those definitions are altered. Interestingly, the wise men from the far east expected Him and recognized Him. Were they in His world and of His own? But regardless, it simply says that He came to the world (Judea is part of the world), that the world was made through Him, and that the world didn't know Him. Not only did He come to the world, but He came to His own. Not only did the world not know Him, His own did not receive Him. " But as many as received Him" whether they were from the world or from His own, " to them He gave the right to become children of God" The problem I have is in redefining a word. I have seen so much of that done on the internet (especially with the Hebrew) and it scares me. So I can either accept a redefinition or use the existing ones. I see a simply and clear statement that " Sin entered the world", " thus death spread to all men". Within the existing definition of "world" is "including its inhabitants". Therefore I have no need to find an ulterior meaning. Just as through one man sin entered the world's inhabitants (which in my view was Adam and Eve), and death through sin, and thus death traversed (passed through) to all men (the world's inhabitants). |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 10, 2011 19:52:05 GMT -5
JL - I have to admit, what Morris emboldened there is fairly difficult to swallow, and there is certainly a trend there. It is hard to find credibility in arrogance, regardless of how correct one may be. Humility is a greater witness than knowledge.
Morris: Sin entered the world / death spread to all men - The logic you are using is changing based on how you want a statement to be applied. You seem to agree that that Cyrus' "world" or "earth" was limited. But that "all men" MUST apply to all men on the earth as we know it today - for all time.
You say you are reading scripture for scripture. But THIS is the interpretation. THIS is the influence of doctrine like a warm blanket that can't be let go of.
In kindness brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 10, 2011 20:04:41 GMT -5
I have asked, time and time again, for what others believe in various texts. And I get back, thus far, is a philosophical statement on how certain texts should be interpreted. How is it that I am expected to answer questions? Does "a philosophical statement about how a certain text should be interpreted" not tell you what the person believes the text says? Why did you then give us the process by which that man was to join the covenant? Your previous comments are completely invalidated by these comments. There is no continuity in your analysis. They did utterly perish as soon as they ate from the tree. Die by process? What does this mean? Physical death? Adam had already died a physical death in Gen. 2. This was after he had named the lion, "does violence." The covenant with Abraham is the same covenant God had with Adam, before the Fall. Adam's punishment was a covenantal judgment. A covenant can not end until all the promises of that covenant are fulfilled. Adam's covenant could not end until the serpent's head was crushed and the sons of Adam could stand again, that is, again be called sons of God. Okay then, lets try it your way. He was in the planet earth, and the planet earth was made through Him, and the planet earth did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the planet earth!
For God so loved the planet earth ... Sorry, it doesn't work for me. John 1:10-11, the passage clearly equates "the world" with "His own." You don't like it. Sorry, but that's what I believe the word means. I told you 1) what I believe and 2) the reason why (philosophy). You claim to want to know what I believe. I told you and you don't like it. I told you why and you condemn it as philosophy. It appears to me that you really don't want what you asked for. Thank-you for the education. Blessings. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 10, 2011 21:26:58 GMT -5
... I do not know where your definition comes from. By if it is true, Romans 5:12 says that sin entered into one people of one generation. I should probably read the remaining posts in this thread before replying, but if I do that I run the risk of forgetting what I want to say! Thinking about it, I think that the "if it is true" interpretation of Romans 5:12 you gave above is a distinct possibility. Romans 5:12-13 NASB Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned -- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Through one man sin entered into the "world" ... until the Law sin was in the "world." The Law was given to only one people. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 10, 2011 23:12:26 GMT -5
great observation Once 4. Here's a little help with what you're seeing:
Rom 5:
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. :13
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. :14
That "nevertheless" part is the kicker here. Law didn't come till Moses. Those before him were w/o Law, but they still inherited the contract that Adam signed. Many men in scripture served God faithfully w/o having a book, tablet or tabernacle to worship with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jun 11, 2011 2:43:35 GMT -5
Thanks for your answers, guys and gals. My broadband is currently on its backside, so I've not been able to respond sooner. Hopefully I'll get this one comment out before it goes mental again.... Why should this be presumed? Is there any textual reason? As we read Genesis 11-14, we see that God speaks of Abram's descendants and how they are to become great in number and possess a land. Would we be right to presume that Abram had children? After all, he was seventy-five years old when left Haran in chapter 12. It would seem logical to assume he had unmentioned children based on his age and the references to his descendants. Yet we'd see we were wrong once we started reading chapter 15. My point is that there is no reason for us to presume children in Genesis 1. The reason I presume they had children is because God commanded them to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it". So I don't think it too much of a stretch to speculate that they had children. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 11, 2011 18:15:15 GMT -5
Definition of "COVENANT": a formal agreement, contract, testament, or treaty between two parties, with specific obligations on each side:
ancient terminology: Hebrew berith, Greek diatheke, Latin testamentum
------
Here is the issue with this: Almighty God makes a promise to man, he in effect says "If you do this, I will give you this"
This is Almighty God. He does not need man to see his will played out. Man just needs to learn how to work within God's set boundaries.
Take laws of nature, like gravity. There is no "if you follow the law of gravity, you will be rewarded with X" you either learn to live with the law of gravity, or you dont.
It would be presumptuous of a nation of men to say "God promised our people that if we followed the law of gravity, he would keep our nation from spinning off of the earth" God doesn't work this way. His laws work on their own and keep balance in the 'universe' - it doesn't need some sort of agreement. The same with how men lead spiritual lives....he simply wants them to work naturally, like animals do in nature (mentioned numerous times in scripture)
Isaiah 1 you read how fed up God was with all the rituals, including Sabbath and the blood of lambs. He simply wanted people to serve him out of love.
The love of law, including the covenants or contracts with God, were defined by the Jews. This was their form of worship...just as many different cultures worship God. Jesus came and, rather than tell them they were all wrong...he instead became a Jew to the Jews. He sacrificed himself according to their Law, celebrated the Passover, gave honor and respect to the patriarchs, and even cleared money-changers out of the temple out of respect (even though the temple would soon be destroyed)
But most importantly he taught them where their eyes should have been the whole time - on God & spiritual things. He rebuked the Pharisees not for what they believed, but for how they treated others. Love of God and Neighbor is what mattered.
A New Covenant was written on hearts now - completely mind-blowing for the fundamentalist Jew. This was simply an exercise of teaching Jews (and Gentiles who were already working this way) how the 'law of gravity really works' - it was not the result of a new written law for a new group of people. Everyone had the law on hearts, we have it from birth. Abel, Enoch and Noah had it. THis was nothing new - it was simply 'getting back to basics' for Israel.
He then gave them their New Jerusalem, what they were hoping for. Loving gesture of a vision beyond words, but it had been there the whole time - they just never saw it. The American Indian on the other hand never thought of themselves as a chosen race, yet they could truly see spiritually because of their humility. The Jews had blinded themselves with Law and pride.
So JL - This is why I don't use the term "covenant" in teaching. Short story long.
in kindness...
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 11, 2011 18:54:28 GMT -5
Definition of "COVENANT": a formal agreement, contract, testament, or treaty between two parties, with specific obligations on each side: ancient terminology: Hebrew berith, Greek diatheke, Latin testamentum Comankind, My concern, when I coined the term Covenant Creation, was how to contrast what I saw being created in Genesis 1 with all of the different versions of Physical Creation. The Hebrew word create is bara. The noun form of create is creation. The noun form of bara is berith. So how do you say creation in Hebrew? Berith. And how do you say covenant in Hebrew? Berith. They are the same word in Hebrew. Would you please explain then what was the berith that was baraed in Genesis 1? Why is the berith not a berith? |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 11, 2011 22:42:51 GMT -5
I need to brush up on my Hebrew.....
1) So, I thought "bara" also meant "fatten" : 1 Samuel 2.29 - Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?'
2) I did not think there was an actual Hebrew word for creation (as in something from nothing) that this was more of a liberal interpretation given to the word bara when God is used with it.
3) I thought the/a noun form of "bara" was "beriya" meaning "fattened" Or "fat": Genesis 41.4 - "And the cows that were ugly and gaunt ate up the seven sleek, fat cows."
4) berith may or may not have roots with barah...not sure on that one. But barah ranges in meaning from fatten to cut to create.
5) "berith" was translated to Greek as "diatheke" which, from what i can tell, has nothing to do with creation?
6) Bara was translated Ktizo, Katabole, ktisis, Deaiourgein, Ktizein - all varied forms of creation.
Me personally, I try not to let a translation of a word have much of a significant impact. There's so much variability in ancient languages that I can't go all-in on meaning. There's meaning above the words on the page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 11, 2011 22:48:21 GMT -5
Definition of "COVENANT": a formal agreement, contract, testament, or treaty between two parties, with specific obligations on each side: ancient terminology: Hebrew berith, Greek diatheke, Latin testamentum Comankind, My concern, when I coined the term Covenant Creation, was how to contrast what I saw being created in Genesis 1 with all of the different versions of Physical Creation. The Hebrew word create is bara. The noun form of create is creation. The noun form of bara is berith. So how do you say creation in Hebrew? Berith. And how do you say covenant in Hebrew? Berith. They are the same word in Hebrew. Would you please explain then what was the berith that was baraed in Genesis 1? Why is the berith not a berith? How do you reconcile this, Jeff? They seem to differ from your understanding of the two words. www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_covenant.htmlbiblescripture.net/Creation.htmlwww.bible-researcher.com/covenant.html |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 12, 2011 0:12:34 GMT -5
Comankind, My concern, when I coined the term Covenant Creation, was how to contrast what I saw being created in Genesis 1 with all of the different versions of Physical Creation. The Hebrew word create is bara. The noun form of create is creation. The noun form of bara is berith. So how do you say creation in Hebrew? Berith. And how do you say covenant in Hebrew? Berith. They are the same word in Hebrew. Would you please explain then what was the berith that was baraed in Genesis 1? Why is the berith not a berith? How do you reconcile this, Jeff? They seem to differ from your understanding of the two words. www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_covenant.htmlbiblescripture.net/Creation.htmlwww.bible-researcher.com/covenant.htmlAllyn, Can you reconcile the first link with the third? What specifically is your concern in the 2nd link. Nothing jumps out at me as applying. I've discussed the meaning of berith in more detail in older posts, explaining it as the "created-thing" or the "cut-thing." As "create" and "cut" are the same verb in ancient Hebrew. It is my understanding that berith is in a specific form that requires it to be the noun form of a verb, not an extended noun. The 3rd link's 2nd suggestion, that the term comes from Assyrian implies that the word is more recent than Moses. That doesn't work for me. More likely, the Assyrian word "to bind" was a loan word from Hebrew. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 12, 2011 4:29:28 GMT -5
I stumbled across this (like I said, I'm not a fan of commentary and being cluttered with theologies) and thought it was an interesting point. "Titus 1:2 says that the eternal life was "promised before the world began". 2 Timothy 1:9 says that the believer was called according to the Lord's own purpose and grace "which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began". Ephesians 1:4 says that such were "chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world". Here are covenants, agreements, promises, but they were not made with or to us, they were all made in and with Christ. So, when we examine 2 Corinthians three and four we see that everything turns on two mediators-Moses and Christ. How thankful should we not be, to think that so far as the Church of the one Body is concerned there are no contractual agreements, no covenants, no testaments, that involve the believer, he finds all in his completeness in Christ." author unknown www.heavendwellers.com/hd_covenant.htmI disagree with one major point....Jer 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10 state pretty clearly that the new covenant most definitely involved the believer's heart. So, this is what leads me to believe that Christ mediated once for the contract, giving everybody freedom. We are not 'locked' into a new deal under Christ. "And I will give the men that have transgressed My covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before Me, WHEN THEY CUT THE CALF IN TWAIN, and passed through the pieces thereof" (Jer. 34:18) Which directly communicates the "cut" root to berith. This would have been translated into diatheke. What Jesus did with his own sacrifice had the same symbolic meaning as that in Jeremiah. Something that the Jews would have understood as a new agreement on their behalf with God. But I just don't see the need to map berith to creation/create, in order to teach the concept that a covenant was established with Adam...the first Jew. (which I'm presuming is the goal.) This should be evident w/o having to rewire Hebrew. I'm just saying that covenants are a Jewish thing, a physical thing...they are not spiritual. If I were to write a book on finding God and truth, it would use words like agape, philia, wisdom, mercy, etc. Not temples, blood, bodies, baptism, sabbath, sacrifice or covenants. Just a personal thing, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 12, 2011 7:57:21 GMT -5
Allyn, Can you reconcile the first link with the third? What specifically is your concern in the 2nd link. Nothing jumps out at me as applying. I've discussed the meaning of berith in more detail in older posts, explaining it as the "created-thing" or the "cut-thing." As "create" and "cut" are the same verb in ancient Hebrew. It is my understanding that berith is in a specific form that requires it to be the noun form of a verb, not an extended noun. The 3rd link's 2nd suggestion, that the term comes from Assyrian implies that the word is more recent than Moses. That doesn't work for me. More likely, the Assyrian word "to bind" was a loan word from Hebrew. Nothing is sticking out except that it looked contrary to what you said that creation and covenant in Hebrew are the same word. I don't have any schooled knowledge that this is the case or not. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 12, 2011 10:19:02 GMT -5
Me neither Allyn...I can only pray that my faith in God will not require a major in Hebrew  if it does, then I'm putting trust in man, which is scary in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 12, 2011 10:54:20 GMT -5
But I just don't see the need to map berith to creation/create, in order to teach the concept that a covenant was established with Adam...the first Jew. (which I'm presuming is the goal.) This should be evident w/o having to rewire Hebrew. Comankind, Tim Martin and I wrote a 532 page book to teach something akin to that concept. I don't think we discussed the etymology of berith. Isn't it interesting that our critics are completely incapable of translating "Physical Creation" into Hebrew, yet translating "Covenant Creation" into Hebrew trivially and redundantly yields Berith Berith? It does suggest that covenant creation is likely to be closer than our physical universe creation critics are. The ancient Jews didn't have a word or phrase for "physical creation." Therefore, they didn't give physical creation much thought. It also suggests that the Hebrew concept of a covenant is all that matters, as far as Scripture and understanding Scripture is concerned. In Western commentaries, covenant is glossed over. They don't understand covenant and don't even know that they don't understand. Westerners today are obsessed with physical creation and don't give covenants much thought. If you have any thoughts on how to understand the ancient Jewish concept of berith, I'd be delighted. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 12, 2011 12:45:05 GMT -5
JL,
Well...what you are asking sounds like this to me:
"A car salesman is having a hard time lately selling the newest model minivan on the floor. Its new feature is a series-parallel hybrid powertrain.
He wonders if he's just not explaining the definition of what series-parallel means as opposed to power split or mild parallel systems.
So - he stops talking about the system and focuses on the benefits, like having passing power when you need it and the elimination of emissions when stopped.
----
Berith means covenant. Its first appearance was Genesis 6. What this has to do with Genesis 1 is frankly beyond me, and requires me to piece things together that FEEL like I'm being sold something.
I don't see the word "creation" anywhere in the OT. I think you are saying it WOULD have been "Berith" had they chosen to employ the word. But they didn't (at least from what I can tell) They used terms like "created/creator of heaven and earth" So for me - moot point.
----
Since we seem to fundamentally believe the same thing, I'm recommending you abandon the nuances of the Hebrew Language and focus on impact or benefit. - Professionally I'm in marketing and design, so I speak from experience : )
Goal: Provide a more pragmatic view of the Bible (of course, selling books is the other)
Audience: People who think that religion has layered too much doctrine on a Bible that is becoming unrecognizable.
USPs: (what you are asking of me)
1) The Bible wasn't written TO me, it was written FOR me.
2) We are God's children, and God loves the imaginations of all cultures, including the Jews.
3) Spirituality is a natural law and cannot be written down, memorized, revised or translated
4) I am spiritually blind but can trust God and the instincts he gave me.
and so on....
So that's what I mean. As far as the merits of Berith, I'd tend to defer to a friend of mine that is a genuine Hebrew and Greek scholar. Our conversations over beer can get pretty dry though, but whatever turns your screws right?
in kindness
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 12, 2011 16:44:45 GMT -5
Comakind, Please dispense with the analogies that sound like ad hominems. Do you believe the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was part of a covenantal judgment? If so, then was the flood a covenantal judgment? And what about the Fall? Do you honestly believe that because you can't find the word covenant in Genesis 1, that there was no covenant until the Flood? Do you honestly believe that just because you can't find the word covenant, there is no covenant in Genesis 1? None at all? -- The questions here have not been of a pragmatic nature. It seems we can get all the pragmatism we want from the false futurist views we have gotten at church over the past half-century. It's a false pragmatism because it is based on a false doctrine. You want pragmatism. Beyond Creation Science has a whole chapter on "What now?" 24 pages. We thought it would be the most important chapter of the book. Reality has struck. It has been completely ignored. No comments from anyone. My coauthor has hundreds of sermons on "What now?" truthinliving.org/. You are welcome to listen to them. I find them both excellent and helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 12, 2011 18:08:54 GMT -5
Jl- no ad hominem intended. Apologize if it was taken that way.
Interesting note about what was focused on on the book.
On the road , but will reply soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 12, 2011 20:40:58 GMT -5
JL...
I believe the bible to be a book of the Jews.
I believe that if THEY believed something was covenantal, then it was to them.
I do not believe that God uses covenants. The Jews do.
So...
Was Jerusalem 70 AD a covenantal fulfillment? Well, it was a prophetic fulfillment. Jesus fulfilled the old covenant with his sacrifice. Were prior razes of Jerusalem considered covenantal? God made a promise to save Lot and his family. Was that the Sodom Covenant? This could go on and on. I guess I'm not sure of the point.
Adding:
The Jews never referred to genesis 1 as a covenant...therefore it wasn't. The reason being: There is no hidden spiritual covenant that the Jews failed to recognize and thats because all known covenants were not 'discovered' they were 'created' by Jews through the office of God. For us to create a new one? That is, IMO, "loving law" - going back to a system that God said was dysfunctional.
Blunt kindness...
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 13, 2011 8:50:43 GMT -5
Jl- no ad hominem intended. Apologize if it was taken that way. Interesting note about what was focused on on the book. On the road , but will reply soon. No problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 13, 2011 9:41:10 GMT -5
Morris: Sin entered the world / death spread to all men - The logic you are using is changing based on how you want a statement to be applied. You seem to agree that that Cyrus' "world" or "earth" was limited. But that "all men" MUST apply to all men on the earth as we know it today - for all time. You say you are reading scripture for scripture. But THIS is the interpretation. THIS is the influence of doctrine like a warm blanket that can't be let go of. In kindness brother. "World" in the OT and "world" in the NT are two completely different words. One being a Hebrew word, the other being a Greek word. Naturally, they convey a similar meaning but are not the exact same. The Hebrew is more along the lines of land or ground. The Greek can also be narrow or broad-based, like the Hebrew, but is far more inclusive; representing also the people, systems, and sometimes even the moral state. I'm not really applying a logic. I'm just using the words that appear there. Sin entered the 'kosmon' through one man. Death entered through sin. " And thus into all humans the death traversed onto which all sinned". Does "all" mean "all"? Are there exceptions? At what geographic point does "all" cease to apply? Or at what point will we say some are not humans? [Note: the Greek word translated "all" here means "all, any, every, the whole"]. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 13, 2011 10:35:42 GMT -5
"Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." - Col 1:21-23
G3956 "pas" - the same Greek word you referred to in Romans 5:12. And this "all" is in the context of "everything under heaven" - far more explicit and descriptive than In Romans, and much broader.
All men / every creature = local or global?
Since we need to read scripture for scripture, as you are proposing...then Paul was saying the following was fulfilled:
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." - Matt 24:14
And, you guessed it, Matt 24 uses "pas"
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 13, 2011 11:13:23 GMT -5
Does "a philosophical statement about how a certain text should be interpreted" not tell you what the person believes the text says? True. But I get so few of them. Look back on this thread, and several others, where I have tried to gain insight but am not given a response to my questions. Instead, I am usually asked questions. My first response to this philosophy was "that sounds awfully strange, that can't be right". But I resolved to investigate it. As I've told others, at the very least I may not agree with it at the end but I should understand it well. I do not agree with futurism or serpent seed doctrine, for examples, but studied them enough to know what they believe, why they believe what they do, and can discuss it. The best way to describe how I feel regarding CC is 'ethereal'. I just can't get a grasp of its 'body'. You mean when I said "I don't know exactly what God's process is here"? I don't recall mentioning a covenant in this regard. I'm interested in knowing why you believe there is no continuity. They did utterly perish as soon as they ate from the tree. Die by process? What does this mean? Physical death? Adam had already died a physical death in Gen. 2. This was after he had named the lion, "does violence."Adam and Eve fell dead physically and spiritually once they ate from the tree? I admit this is new to me. But that's what I mean by utterly perish; cease to exist in any context. They didn't cease to exist. Am I correct in saying that you see Genesis 1 and 2 as completely allegorical and symbolic? If the answer is 'yes', why is it that one man gave all the creatures their names? Surely this means something else. Does this come from scripture? Does this come from scripture? Does this come from scripture? Does this come from scripture? In other words, how are these conclusions arrived at? How is the promise of the serpent's head tied to the covenant? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 13, 2011 12:59:14 GMT -5
Okay then, lets try it your way. He was in the planet earth, and the planet earth was made through Him, and the planet earth did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the planet earth!
For God so loved the planet earth ... Sorry, it doesn't work for me. John 1:10-11, the passage clearly equates "the world" with "His own." You don't like it. Sorry, but that's what I believe the word means. I told you 1) what I believe and 2) the reason why (philosophy). You claim to want to know what I believe. I told you and you don't like it. I told you why and you condemn it as philosophy. It appears to me that you really don't want what you asked for. Thank-you for the education. Blessings. Why are you using a select definition of the modern English word "world" instead of one for the ancient Greek word "kosmon"? Have I not already shown that "kosmon" is usually inclusive of its inhabitants, and that comes directly from its definition? 1 Timothy 6:7, " For we brought nothing into [the kosmon], and it is certain we can carry nothing out." What do you believe "kosmon" means here? 1 John 2:1-2, "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole [kosmon]." Does this "kosmon" include us? Why or why not? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 13, 2011 13:09:08 GMT -5
"World" in the OT and "world" in the NT are two completely different words. One being a Hebrew word, the other being a Greek word. Naturally, they convey a similar meaning but are not the exact same. The Hebrew is more along the lines of land or ground. The Greek can also be narrow or broad-based, like the Hebrew, but is far more inclusive; representing also the people, systems, and sometimes even the moral state. Morris, The Old Testament is available in an ancient Greek form, the Septuagint. The New Testament is available in an ancient Aramaic form, the Peshitta. The Hebrew word translated "hosts" in Gen. 2:1 is "kosmos" which is translated "world" throughout the NT. Have you considered that the ancient Jews who translated the Septuagint might have a better understanding of both languages and that "hosts" in the OT is the same concept/denotation as "world" in the NT? Because Aramaic is so similar to Hebrew, a similar analysis could be done comparing Aramaic/Hebrew words in the NT to Greek words in the NT. The tools for this are not as well developed, so it is beyond my skills to investigate this. But it seems to me that this gives us a Rosetta Stone to help us better understand the ancient languages and thought patterns of the ancients. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 13, 2011 13:14:54 GMT -5
I stumbled across this (like I said, I'm not a fan of commentary and being cluttered with theologies) and thought it was an interesting point. "Titus 1:2 says that the eternal life was "promised before the world began". 2 Timothy 1:9 says that the believer was called according to the Lord's own purpose and grace "which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began". Ephesians 1:4 says that such were "chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world". Here are covenants, agreements, promises, but they were not made with or to us, they were all made in and with Christ. ... I agree that those are covenantal statements, but I disagree that they were made with Christ, but that the promise of a future Christ was integral to the covenants. 1 Peter 1:20 NASB For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you |
|
